R&M Recall Packster 70: Recall and immediate riding stop.

[theemartymac]

Lastly, if a P70 customer doesn't want to return the bike, they assume all liability for it.

It's always worth noting that liability doesn't necessarily transfer like that without a contract. If the owner of the bike simply doesn't get notice (or chooses to keep it and not respond to R&M or the dealer about the replacement), they don't just get to wash their hands of liability. But if the owner was contacted satisfactorily, and R&M and the dealer can produce proof of that conversation, then they can say they are transferring most if not all liability to the owner...

People don't find out about recalls all the time, and still get to sue years later if they are injured as a result.

 

[theemartymac]

Clearly the USA dealers who are giving their customers a brand new Load 75 when they bring in their Packster for the recall are also sacrificing some of their second margin as a gesture of solidarity and care to their customer.

Another way to look at it is that R&M and/or the dealers are also buying the cheapest possible insurance in that case. It would be very difficult for a judge or arbitrator to find for the plaintiff in a case when the dealer was willing to ensure the customer was not out-of-pocket any expense and/or inconvenience due to the recall, even better if they went so far as to arrange pick up and delivery as part of the deal. It would be feasible here in North America anyway for a customer (plaintiff) to claim they couldn't afford to replace the bike if they did need to pony up a cash difference to buy another comparable model. If it could be successfully argued that the bike was critical to the individuals mobility/livelihood/etc , as in primary transportation, they might even be able to argue that they couldn't afford to be without it during the timeline of the reorder/replacement.

So this is a sound strategy for both R&M/Dealer customer service and liability protection here in our litigious N/A environment.

 

[mschwett]

Considering the size, weight (almost 100 pounds!) and intended purpose of this kind of bike, this is just a massive, massive inconvenience for those who purchased them. Presumably the fix is exceedingly difficult, because a far better and more customer-friendly approach would be for r+m to figure out exactly how to fix it, make the parts and procedures available to the dealers for repair on the spot, and/or offer mobile service to come make the repairs at a location of the customer's choosing.

of course, few if any companies in this day and age would go to those lengths. a full refund is the absolute bare minimum, and a discount on a different bike than one originally wanted which ends up not much of a discount at all is no consolation. i will note that when my vanmoof s3 became essentially unrideable, they (a much maligned company, for good reason!) offered me a brand new one on the spot at the local store, which is only a few miles from where i live... and that's a bike which costs a fraction of a r+m and primarily employs a direct-to-consumer model.

 

[sammcneill]

Considering the size, weight (almost 100 pounds!) and intended purpose of this kind of bike, this is just a massive, massive inconvenience for those who purchased them. Presumably the fix is exceedingly difficult, because a far better and more customer-friendly approach would be for r+m to figure out exactly how to fix it, make the parts and procedures available to the dealers for repair on the spot, and/or offer mobile service to come make the repairs at a location of the customer's choosing.

of course, few if any companies in this day and age would go to those lengths. a full refund is the absolute bare minimum, and a discount on a different bike than one originally wanted which ends up not much of a discount at all is no consolation. i will note that when my vanmoof s3 became essentially unrideable, they (a much maligned company, for good reason!) offered me a brand new one on the spot at the local store, which is only a few miles from where i live... and that's a bike which costs a fraction of a r+m and primarily employs a direct-to-consumer model.

This is a fascinating thread to which I’m enjoying reading the replies and varied perspectives

 

[HariSeldon]

I am sympathetic to the dealer, they have provided the pre purchase sales service for the customer, assembled the bike, provided the handover , delivered etc and subsequently have to recover the bike for Reise and Müller, store it etc.

A refund is given, the customer can keep the money or buy a new bike from anywhere, it might be another Reise and Muller and it may then be the original dealer who gets to sell another bike.

Whoever supplies the new bike has a new sale process and the buyer ends up with one bike and two have been sold.

If the second dealer was for another brand or a different R & M dealer no one would expect them to do it on the cheap and sell at a discount…. If the original dealer sells another bike shouldn’t he be entitled to the full price also ?

If the dealer offers a better deal to cement the customer relationship, then that’s all to the good, it should be voluntary though.